Clint Huggins' killers to serve 22 years for his brutal murder in 1996

TWO-time convicted killers Leslie Huggins and Junior Phillips have begun to serve a 22 year sentence for the brutal, premeditated murder of State witness Clint Huggins in 1996.

Clint Huggins' murder by his cousins and a friend had shocked the nation as it was part of a plot to silence him in the high-profile trial against drug kingpin Dole Chadee and his gang.

On January 22, Huggins, 53, and Phillip were resentenced by Justice Gail Gonzales to 22 years, beginning from the date of the resentencing.

The two have already served more than 25 years for the murder of Chadee’s brother Thackoor Boodram in 1997. Gonzales ruled that the sentences from the two murders - Huggins and Boodram - should not overlap. “In this case the sentence is to take effect from today,” she said on Wednesday.

Leslie and Junior were convicted of Clint’s murder two years after their 2001 convictions for Boodram’s murder. Nine others convicted for Boodram's murder were freed in March 2024. Huggins was resentenced to 30 years for Boodram's murder but he could not be released because he was serving life for Clint's murder. Philllips was also convicted for Boodram's murder and was also resentenced.

A third man, Arnold Huggins - Leslie’s brother - was previously resentenced by Gonzales to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years in November 2023, for Clint’s murder.

Their resentencing came after the separate judges found their previous life sentences were unconstitutional and ordered they be resentenced.

“This was a premediated killing for financial gain. In essence a contract killing…an attempt to defeat the course of justice. The killing was brutal, almost overkill,” Gonzales said.

During the resentencing hearing, it was revealed that both men had made substantial strides toward rehabilitation during their time in prison. They participated in educational and vocational programs and maintained good conduct. Reports from prison authorities described both Huggins and Phillip as posing a low risk of reoffending.

While acknowledging these efforts, Gonzales emphasised that the punishment must reflect the severity of the crime.

“In this case, where then and more so now State witness are being murdered with impunity before matters can come to trial makes retribution and deterrence the main objective of the sentence.

“.... In this case, there was a planned and premediated murder of a State witness, which this court finds warrants a life sentence at least as a starting point.” She imposed an increased minimum term of 33 years for the aggravating feature of the Boodram conviction, but reduced their life sentences to a determinate sentence of 25 years. Although the time they have spent serving their sentences for the Boodram murder were not considerd, they received decuctions for the time between their arrest and convictions, leaving wthem with the 22 years, one month and nine days to serve, rounding it off to 22 years. In refusing to impose concurrent sentences, Gonzales said, “one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for two murders arising out of two separate incidents and given the gravity of both offences this sentence should not be subsumed in the earlier sentence.”

Gonzales also declined to grant further sentence reductions for breaches of Huggins’ constitutional rights due to the prison authorities' failure to conduct mandatory reviews of his life sentence every four years. She left the matter of potential remission to the prison authorities.

“Any calculation of remittance should be left to the prisons,” she said, also refusing to calculate their sentences in “prison years.”

“This court cannot and will not assume, that in this case or in any given case, the prison authority would not do what it is statutorily bound to do. “Secondly and most importantly, there is redress for persons who feel that their rights have been breached by a failure to carry out such reviews, albeit in the civil jurisdiction.

“There is, therefore, no need for this court to anticipate a breach and then proceed to grant a remedy by way of a reduction in sentence or to mitigate against any anticipated breach.”

Peter Carter, Vanita Ramroop represented Leslie Huggins. Rajiv Persad, SC, and Ajesh Sumessar represented Junior Phillip. Solange Devenish appeared for the State.

Huggins murder revisited

Leslie, his brother Arnold and Phillip were convicted of Huggin’s murder by then Justice Alice Yorke Soo-Hon on May 8, 2003.

Their appeals were dismissed on April 21, 2005, in the Court of Appeal and on June 9, 2008, in the Privy Council.

At the time of his death, Huggins was in protective custody as the main witness against drug kingpin Dole Chadee and his gang.

Arnold and Leslie were Clint’s cousins and Phillip was Leslie was a neighbour and Leslie’s close friend.

Clint decided to leave protective custody on February 18, 1996, to visit his family at Leslie’s home to take part in carnival celebrations.

The prosecution’s cas was that Leslie visited Joey Ramiah, a relation by marriage, and Chadee’s right-hand lieutenant, in prison where the latter offered $3 million to kill Clint.

When Clint arrived at Leslie’s home, he spent the day with him and stayed in the house overnight. The next day, a woman, Swarsatee “Satee” Maharaj, who lived with Leslie, overheard Leslie and his uncle Simon Ragunanan talking about going Matura by Arnold for a gun.

Leslie, Junior, Satee, Clint and Simon spent Carnival Monday evening (February 19) in Sangre Grande at celebrations there and at 11 pm, Leslie told Satee that Arnold ws going to shoot Clint in the crowd but later on Junior said it could not be done because of the crowd. Clint was seen by several police officers that night as well as Haile Selassi Amoroso lying on the bonnet of a car, intoxicated, with Leslie saying it was the “right time to take him out.”

Nothing happened and the group returned to Leslie’s house. The next morning, the group left for Port of Spain in two cars. The cars stopped on the Uriah Butler Highway and Arnold shot Clint twice, then Leslie rammed him with one of the cars onto a chain link fence. Leslie then stabbed Clint seveal times, Junior hit him on the head with a piece of wood and the car was set on fire with Clint’s body inside. Leslie threw the knife and the keys to the other car by the Valencia bridge while Leslie and Junior threw out their jerseys and sneakers along the Valencia stretch.

They returned to Leslie’s home to clean up and he told the others, if questions about Clint’s death, that he borrowed the car to buy cigarettes but never returned.

On February 20, Leslie, Junior and Satee met a man named “Sharkey,” and told him they burnt the car for insurance, asking him to check if it had burnt out completely. Meanwhile, Leslie told Satee he would collect the rewards from his uncle Joey and bury it at the back of the house.

When questioned by police, Leslie, Satee and Junior gave statements in line with their prepared story.

It was not until November 3, 1999, that Junior Phillip contacted the police and confessed to participating in Clint’s murder. He took them to the Valencia bridge and along the Valencia stretch although nothing was found. On November 11, Satee, who was then living with Phillip, was arrested and implicated Arnold, Leslie and Junior in the murder. She was granted immunity from prosecution and gave evidence at their trial.

Arnold and Leslie were arrested on November 12. At the trial, Arnold presented an alibi and denied taking part in Clint’s murder, alleging he was beaten with a pool cue and a gun butt wrapped in a wet towel by the police to give a statement. They were eventually convicted by a jury which deliberated for a little over two hours and sentenced to death which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Because of the 2004 ruling in Charles Matthews on the mandatory death penalty, the Privy Council said it would be unfair to carry out the sentences of death and allowed their appeals against sentence, substituting it with life imprisonment. Their appeals against their convictions were dismissed.